Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat weblog has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech and privacy/confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is David Brophy, Merpel, Jeremy Phillips, Eleonora Rosati, Nicola Searle, Darren Smyth, Annsley Merelle Ward and Neil J. Wilkof. You're welcome to read, post comments and participate in our community. You can email the Kats here

For the half-year to 31 December 2015, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Jani Ihalainen, Nikos Prentoulis and Mark Schweizer.

Birgit Clark is on Sabbatical till the end of the year

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Sunday, 6 May 2012

While resting her injured hind paw in a mountain of pillows, this Kat could have done with some Aussie footie on TV (go the Pies! and go the Knights!). As it turns out, the closest which should could get was the sports broadcast saga involving Australian football codes and rival telecommunications companies: National Rugby League Investments Pty Limited v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 59 (27 April 2012).

As readers will recall the Australian Football League (AFL) and the National Rugby League (NRL) had granted telecommunications company Telstra an exclusive licence to communicate to the public, by means of the internet and mobile telephony enabled devices, free to air television broadcasts of football matches conducted by them. Optus offered a subscription service 'TV Now' which allowed a subscriber to have free to air television programmes recorded as and when broadcast and then played back at the time (or times) of the subscriber’s choosing on the subscriber’s compatible Optus mobile device or personal computer. The system which permits such 'time-shifting' of programme viewing requires the copying and storing of each television broadcast recorded for a subscriber. The AFL, NRL and Telstra claimed that Optus' TV Now service infringed their copyright interests.

The matter came before Rares J in the Federal Court who concluded that the Optus TV Now service did not infringe copyright in the broadcasts of the AFL and NRL games in the particular ways that the rightholders had alleged. See previous KatPost here.

It came as no surprise that the AFL, NRL and Telstra appealed the decision to the Full Federal Court. The appeal was heard by Finn, Emmett and Bennett JJ in mid March 2012 and judgment was given at the end of April 2012.

Issues

1. Who made the copy?
The Full Court stated the issue as follows: when a cinematograph film (or copy) and a sound recording (or copy) were made when a television broadcast of one of the AFL or NRL matches was recorded for a subscriber, who, for the purposes of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) was the maker of that film, sound recording or copy? Was it Optus or the subscriber (or both of them jointly)?

Rares J at first instance answered that it was the subscriber because they pressed the 'record' button.
The Full Court disagreed, considering this a too simplistic view of the contractual arrangement between Optus and its subscribers.

In their Honour's view (at [79]), each cinematograph film and sound recording of the broadcasts and copies of the films was brought into existence after a subscriber had clicked the 'record' button on that subscriber’s Optus compatible device. However, the Optus system itself had been designed in a such way that made Optus the 'main performer of the act of [copying]' (at [60]) so that its position was so central that it could not be disregarded in determining who made the copy.

Optus could be said to be the maker in that the service it offered to, and did, supply a subscriber was to make and to make available to that person a recording of the football match he or she selected. Alternatively Optus and the subscriber could be said to be the maker as they acted in concert for the purpose of making a recording of the particular broadcast which the subscriber required to be made and of which he or she initiated the automated process by which copies were produced.
The Full Court considered it unnecessary for present purposes to express a definitive view as between the two options.

2. If Optus made the copy, did a defence apply?
The Full Court stated the issue as follows: if Optus’ act in making such a film would otherwise constitute an infringement of the copyright of AFL, NRL or Telstra, can Optus invoke the 'private and domestic use' defence of section 111 of the Copyright Act 1968?

Rares J did not have to make a ruling on this issue given that his answer to the first question was that the subscriber made the copy.

For the Full Court, the issue here was whether the defence provided by section 111 applied only to the maker of the cinematograph film or sound recording or whether it could extend to a person who makes the copy not for his or her own 'private and domestic use', but the cinematograph film or sound recording was nonetheless made for such use by another. In their Honour's view (at [89]), there was nothing in the language, or the provenance, of section 111 to suggest that it was intended to cover commercial copying on behalf of individuals.

If Optus alone made the copies, it cannot rely on section 111 (at [89]). Optus may have copied programmes so that others can use the recorded programme for the purpose envisaged by section 111. However, Optus makes no use itself of the copies itself: it merely stores them for 30 days. Further, its reasons for providing the service of making copies of programmes for subscribers is to derive such market advantage in the digital TV industry as its commercial exploitation can provide.

If both Optus and the subscriber made the copies for that subscriber, then their Honours were of the view (at [92]) that a similar result ensues but for somewhat different reasons. But for the operation of section 111, both Optus and the subscriber would be jointly and severally liable for doing the acts comprised in the copyright of the respective owners. Each could be sued as the maker of the copy without joinder of the other. For present purposes, their Honours assumed that the subscriber in making his or her copies did so for the purposes prescribed by section 111. If the subscriber was sued as a maker of the copies made to provide the programme he or she selected, that person could rely on section 111. However, they stated (at [93]) that section 111 offered no solace to Optus. Optus was severally liable as the person who did the acts of copying and that liability was not a secondary one dependent upon the primary liability of the subscriber.

Comment
This Kat could not find any comments on the decision from the AFL, NRL or Telstra, but assumes that they would state that the Full Court got it right. Optus on the other hand, published this notice on the Optus TV Now homepage:

The Optus TV Now service has been suspended indefinitely as a result of the Federal Court's decision on Friday 27 April 2012.

When we launched the Optus TV Now service we were confident it was within the law. While we are reviewing the impact of today's court decision we regret to inform you we are unable to offer the Optus TV Now service at this time. We sincerely apologise for having to withdraw this service as a result of the judgment. Customers will not incur any further charges once the service has been suspended.

We remain committed to ensuring Australians have access to the latest technologies. We will continue to offer innovative digital solutions now and into the future.

The IPKat thinks that it will be inevitable that this decision will be appealed to the High Court, given the money at stake by both parties.

Merpel considers this to be yet another round in the conflict between the electronic equipment industry and the entertainment
industry, perhaps best described as the one 'where the living room meets the cloud'. With many home entertainment devices relying on cloud-based service providers and infrastructure, could such a decision by the Full Court be said to stifle innovation? Or does the decision of the Full Court leave the door open to Optus to develop different technology which achieves the same result for consumers but does not infringe the Copyright Act?

1 comment:

Andy J
said...

My guess is that the next 'business model' for this kind of service will involve a form of home recording device (possibly available for hire), somewhat like Sky+ which will reside in the domestic user's home. The user will be able to set it to record from a mobile handset, and the device will be able to stream the recorded program to his mobile device at a later time. This would certainly overcome the 'Optus' third party dimension in this case. To my way of thinking it would probably be legal under both Australian and UK current law, and possibly under US law also given the arguments behind the Aereo case.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':

Gama and Pal: is the wet-wipe packaging confusingly similar?

Yesterday morning the IPKat posted this item on an ongoing passing-off action, Gama Healthcare Ltd v Pal International Ltd. in which Gama objected that Pal's wet-wipe packaging would lead people to think it was theirs.

When that Katpost went live, there were no examples of the parties’ packaging to show readers. The Kats have since received images of both, which they reproduce below, and they ask readers, through the medium of the sidebar poll below, if they think that Pal's packaging might be mistaken for Gama’s one.

Pal's packs are sold under the Medipal brand and Gama's are sold as Clinell products.

Caveat: this poll is conducted purely for the amusement of readers of this weblog. It is not mandated by the trial judge or commissioned by either party; it is not based on any methodology and it is not intended to have any evidential value at all.

Wet-wipe packaging: do you think you could pick up a packet of Medipal, thinking it was Clinell?

The IPKat's sidebar contents

Want to complain?If you feel that you have been unfairly prevented from posting a comment on one of this weblog's features, here's what you can do about it

The IPKat's cousins: some IP-friendly blogs for youThe IPKat lists his 'family' of IP blogs, some of which focus on specific rights, geographical zones, markets or interests

How many page-views?See how many times the pages of the IPKat weblog have been purr-viewed

The Kat that tweetsToo short to blog? Some news and views are still worth airing, thanks to Twitter

Want to receive the IPKat weblog by email?You can get each post, or a digest, sent direct to your favourite mailbox

Not just any old IPKatEvery so often, this feline creeps into the limelight

The IPKat's RSS feeding arrangementsFeedburner and all those other things ...

What you've been sayingHere are the most recent readers' comments on the IPKat's posts

The IPKat's Greatest Hits!Here are the five posts on the IPKat's weblog that have received the most attention from readers over the past 30 days

Has the Kat got your tongue?Some translation facilities for readers whose first language is not English, or who are just plain masochistic

Creative Commons licenceYou too can make use of this blog's contents, if you follow the rules

The IPKat ArchiveAncient posts, going back to June 2003

Want to complain?

If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation -- essentially that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should be relevant to the blogpost on which they purport to comment.

If you feel that your comment should have been moderated, please email the IPKat at theipkat@gmail.com and let him know, since it may be that your comment has been misdirected into the Blogger software's Spam file.

In the event that there has been no software malfunction and that your post has been rejected, if you want to appeal against this decision please contact either (i) Dr Danny Friedmann of theIP Dragonweblog (ipdragon@gmail.com) or (ii) Professor Dennis Crouch of the Patently-O weblog (dcrouch@patentlyo.com). Danny or Dennis will review your complaint, preserving the confidentiality of your identity and will let both you and us know whether your complaint is justified.

If your complaint relates to bias or distortion, the IPKat suggests that you contact him initially, bearing in mind that he and Merpel are generally willing to host pieces by guest contributors even when their opinions are at odds with those of this blog's contributors.